If you want to argue with well documented historical fact, feel free. I'd prefer you did it in your closet, rather than here, but hey, it's not my forum.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tompe

Even now heavily researched books like academic books are not selling with a profit but are payed for in other ways like people having academic positions.

And I would also think that people would write books about things they love avd these books would be like heavily researched books.

Or did you mean some other kind of books? Do you have any example of the kind of book that would not be written?

The average novel length work of fiction takes six months to a year to wite. Most fiction writers never do make a living at it, and most only write a couple of books before they give up. Once the manuscript is done, the publisher devotes about as many man-hours turning it in to a book as the author did writing the manuscript. That's why most self-published stuff sucks - the lack of editing. The overall quality of published fiction would plummet (and it's pretty bad now) without the possibility of making a profit from it.

You will likely dismiss the contributions of the publisher to the process. I will laugh at you if you do, and recomment you read only 99 cent self published books from now on.

I mean, really, if you don't value the creative work of others, why do you want it so much?

They do, however, facilitate that creation. I've read enough self published work to value the contribution of the publisher. A manuscript isn't a saleable book. Generally, it's unreadable crap (even more often than published stuff is, and that's saying something).

Sort of. The original motivation for paying was to encourage distribution of existing works, not necessarily to stimulate more. The motivation for continued copy protections was to stimulate creation.

When they were first set up, those protections went to publishers, on the theory that they were the best agents to stimulate creation. A bit later, in the US, the theory was that the artists and authors themselves should get the protections.

With no copyright, authors would have to decide if they'd be better off financially by distributing widely, and hoping people enjoyed their works enough to pay for them--or locking their works down to restricted viewers, who are only allowed access after signing a complex NDA contract.

Or potentially: release the first half of a novel widely and freely. Charge money, and make people sign a contract, to read the ending.

I never understand the "get rid of copyright!!!!" activists. Copyright law has some serious problems and needs a big overhaul, but it sticks around because it works much better than anything we had before.

Or anything that's been suggested recently. Contracts are useless if you're not willing to enforce them, and enforcing them is basially impossible when you're talking about a consumer product that sells for a few bucks and a lawsuit costs $100k+ (as the music industry has proven).

And I would also think that people would write books about things they love avd these books would be like heavily researched books.

Or did you mean some other kind of books? Do you have any example of the kind of book that would not be written?

I keep of list of what I finish. Here are the last ten:

7/7 Arthur Herman, Freedom’s Forge: How American Business Produced Victory in World War II
7/12 Faye Kellerman, Blindman’s Bluff
7/27 Faye Kellerman, Hangman
8/2 Len Deighton, SS-GB
8/10 Paul Thomas Murphy, Shooting Victoria: Madness, Mayhem, and the Rebirth of the British Monarchy
8/11 Andrew Gumbel and Roger Charles, Oklahoma City: What the Investigation Missed and Why It Still Matters
8/15 Martin Cruz Smith, Polar Star
9/1 Patrick Dennis, Auntie Mame An Irreverent Escapade
9/7 Craig Shirley, December 1941: 31 Days that Changed America and Saved the World
9/16 Robin Fisher and Angelo Guglielmo Jr, The Woman Who Wasn’t There: The True Story of an Incredible Deception

My guess is that without at least a low level of copyright enforcement, at most one of them would have been written. Paul Thomas Murphy used to be a professor, and maybe he writes out of academic habit. But if he didn't get any money out of it, would he be able to travel to all those American and British research libraries?

7/7 Arthur Herman, Freedom’s Forge: How American Business Produced Victory in World War II
7/12 Faye Kellerman, Blindman’s Bluff
7/27 Faye Kellerman, Hangman
8/2 Len Deighton, SS-GB
8/10 Paul Thomas Murphy, Shooting Victoria: Madness, Mayhem, and the Rebirth of the British Monarchy
8/11 Andrew Gumbel and Roger Charles, Oklahoma City: What the Investigation Missed and Why It Still Matters
8/15 Martin Cruz Smith, Polar Star
9/1 Patrick Dennis, Auntie Mame An Irreverent Escapade
9/7 Craig Shirley, December 1941: 31 Days that Changed America and Saved the World
9/16 Robin Fisher and Angelo Guglielmo Jr, The Woman Who Wasn’t There: The True Story of an Incredible Deception

My guess is that without at least a low level of copyright enforcement, at most one of them would have been written. Paul Thomas Murphy used to be a professor, and maybe he writes out of academic habit. But if he didn't get any money out of it, would he be able to travel to all those American and British research libraries?

Traveling is neat and all, but if all of those research materials were freely available online, the research might be a bit easier...

That particular site was a pirate site, and it is indeed down now. Amazon shoots them down pretty quickly.

How were they a pirate site though, that is what we are asking. Did they simply download best seller torrents and try to resell them or did they accumulate copies of best sellers through legal means and then try to resell them? This is the distinction we are currently thinking about.

For instance, most print best sellers are available used through amazon for a bit more than it costs to ship the book itself, with ebooks the cost of shipping is negligible.

How were they a pirate site though, that is what we are asking. Did they simply download best seller torrents and try to resell them or did they accumulate copies of best sellers through legal means and then try to resell them? This is the distinction we are currently thinking about.

With ebooks bought through Amazon, there is no distinction unless you are dishonest enough to deliberately lie when you promise to abide by their terms when you buy it.

How were they a pirate site though, that is what we are asking. Did they simply download best seller torrents and try to resell them or did they accumulate copies of best sellers through legal means and then try to resell them? This is the distinction we are currently thinking about.

There's no way of telling without buying from them. The were described as Kindle Books, but that means nothing. If they were, the DRM would have had to been stripped.

How can Amazon and the purchaser of the book both own the book concurrently?

Rather the point. Again, in case you missed it last time, when you buy an ebook from Amazon, you agree to their terms. If you do so with no intention of living up to those terms you are a liar and a fraud.

Rather the point. Again, in case you missed it last time, when you buy an ebook from Amazon, you agree to their terms. If you do so with no intention of living up to those terms you are a liar and a fraud.

In case you missed it last time. Just because a seller claim something like that you are not buying something does not make it true.